[Q] vulnerability of A/Cs in single unit Airbase

[Knightpawn]

The manual reads:
"Be aware that single-unit airfields are not intended to be targets and should only be included in a scenario
where they will not be attacked. Thus, a forward airstrip in the heat of the battle should be modelled as a
multi-unit airbase, while a base hosting long-range bombers far away from any of the opponent’s weapons
should be modelled as a single-unit one"

My question, however, is if single unit airbase is nevertheless attacked, is there a probability that A/Cs sitting in it will get destroyed, or not?

[tylerblakebrandon]

If I recall correctly nuclear weapons ate the only ones that will actually accept a single unit airfield as a target.

[Nikel]

Just tested it.

B-1B launched 24 JASSMs vs a single unit AB with 30 russian ACs, 10 of each type.

1.png (11.85 KiB) Viewed 280 times

2.png (72.86 KiB) Viewed 280 times

3.png (13.79 KiB) Viewed 279 times

[Kushan04]

My question, however, is if single unit airbase is nevertheless attacked, is there a probability that A/Cs sitting in it will get destroyed, or not?

You don't. If a scenario designer used a single-unit airbase it means they don't intend/want you attacking it.

[Knightpawn]

You don't. If a scenario designer used a single-unit airbase it means they don't intend/want you attacking it.

Granted and thanks . However, for so long as #0017138 remains an issue (see https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... e#p5259003) there is arguably merit in using them - let alone that they contribute to a lower AU count. And the question arose in the context of a scenario that I [am struggling to] design